Nothing you wrote was bad. In fact it was fantastic.
I think you could use your real name and that seems very low cost.
The one issue on substance is that I wish you could have delved into more, was engaging about the long, high effort comments that was made about pandemic prevention, which isn’t the same as covid response. Especially not just saying that an incremental package from another candidate was comparable.
There is such a world of difference between pandemic prevention and another covid response package—that difference reflects how you could influence the people here who are donating to the candidate in the OP to donate somewhere else.
Re: too much spending.
(Another reason why the money is going where it is, is that this could lift the cruel 50% work hours that a congresswoman spends just calling donors and serving the party, with that lifted, they have freedom to serve their country and their constituents).
As a meta comment (a point about the process of my commenting), I guess my main issue is with the response here with the EA.
By the way I’m not an EA, no one likes me so this isn’t official or anything like that.
For anyone else reading this, including full on partisan and political policy people—I think EA and everyone would welcome detailed, policy like discussion on pandemic preparation.
You can do this even if it (highly) unfavorable to the candidate. That is the nature of EA.
One major opportunity with this press and money is that someone could use attention to create a virtuous cycle of actual policy discussion (as opposed to too much discussion about owls or gotchas).
A real convincing thread here about improving policy in pandemics that satisfies the EA would very possibly unlock principled political funding that protects Americans.
If you really had the knowledge, many people would navigate you through the silly EA terminology and habits.
Nothing you wrote was bad. In fact it was fantastic.
I think you could use your real name and that seems very low cost.
The one issue on substance is that I wish you could have delved into more, was engaging about the long, high effort comments that was made about pandemic prevention, which isn’t the same as covid response. Especially not just saying that an incremental package from another candidate was comparable.
There is such a world of difference between pandemic prevention and another covid response package—that difference reflects how you could influence the people here who are donating to the candidate in the OP to donate somewhere else.
Re: too much spending.
(Another reason why the money is going where it is, is that this could lift the cruel 50% work hours that a congresswoman spends just calling donors and serving the party, with that lifted, they have freedom to serve their country and their constituents).
As a meta comment (a point about the process of my commenting), I guess my main issue is with the response here with the EA.
By the way I’m not an EA, no one likes me so this isn’t official or anything like that.
For anyone else reading this, including full on partisan and political policy people—I think EA and everyone would welcome detailed, policy like discussion on pandemic preparation.
You can do this even if it (highly) unfavorable to the candidate. That is the nature of EA.
One major opportunity with this press and money is that someone could use attention to create a virtuous cycle of actual policy discussion (as opposed to too much discussion about owls or gotchas).
A real convincing thread here about improving policy in pandemics that satisfies the EA would very possibly unlock principled political funding that protects Americans.
If you really had the knowledge, many people would navigate you through the silly EA terminology and habits.